nuffink wrote:
Disgruntled trance-heads walk out of club in reverb-tail smoothness protest.
Best reverb comment ever!!! I mean the bestest ever!!!
Quik Quak RaySpace Best Reverb Ever?
-
- KVRian
- 1442 posts since 30 May, 2005
Best reverb comment ever!!! I mean the bestest ever!!!
In the end will be the word.
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
-
- KVRAF
- 11384 posts since 3 Feb, 2003 from Finland, Espoo
Look, you guys just need to TRY rayspace yourself and you'll notice a couple of things:
- It IS a high quality reverb, just not ultra smooth
- It excells at small ambient spaces and open diffuse fields (spaces without walls that have small diffusors randomly scattered around)
- It can produce some rather whacky delay lines for lead instruments
- It sounds very good on pads, vocals, acoustic intruments that lack sharp transients etc.
- It DOES sit in a mix rather well but like other reverbs is not optimal for all sounds
- It is NOT static convolution, the reverb MOVES and MODULATES the positioning in a seemingly semi-random way. Keep feeding it a constant signal and listen to just the wet part, you'll see (batManic warning, it's rather subtle).
- It costs much less than most other reverbs and outperforms/compliments a bunch of them. Hey, it's 40$ !!
Some negatives:
- The GUI does look a bit toyish and still could be more friendly in the 'building' process (like allowing selecting of big parts and deleting/moving them in big chunks)
- It uses quite a lot of CPU for denser (more rays) rooms
- It can sound very metallic in certain situations (small room, long decay, no high damping)
- It's not "the only reverb you'll ever need"
- When switching to the 'mono' source the volume goes drastically up (bug I think).
- Demo version still rather annoying with a loud beep much too often (why can't developers just trust the users a bit more!? Make the beep LOW in volume, very short in duration and a 60 second cycle, it'll still be effective copy protection and make the demo experience much better.
Some tips and tricks:
- Keep tweaking the 'ray' parameter, even small changes can dramatically change the stereofield of the early reflections and the feeling of the reverb
- Negative Pre-delay can be used to great advantage (to get rid of too long early reflections that sound like single delays)
- Use the high frequency damping of the walls and finetune them with the air damping
- Build unsymmetrical whacky rooms and randomly paint small bricks all over the place. Don't be afraid to knock holes in the walls of the room or simply don't build a room at all, just an open field with diffusors!
Cheers!
bManic
- It IS a high quality reverb, just not ultra smooth
- It excells at small ambient spaces and open diffuse fields (spaces without walls that have small diffusors randomly scattered around)
- It can produce some rather whacky delay lines for lead instruments
- It sounds very good on pads, vocals, acoustic intruments that lack sharp transients etc.
- It DOES sit in a mix rather well but like other reverbs is not optimal for all sounds
- It is NOT static convolution, the reverb MOVES and MODULATES the positioning in a seemingly semi-random way. Keep feeding it a constant signal and listen to just the wet part, you'll see (batManic warning, it's rather subtle
).- It costs much less than most other reverbs and outperforms/compliments a bunch of them. Hey, it's 40$ !!
Some negatives:
- The GUI does look a bit toyish and still could be more friendly in the 'building' process (like allowing selecting of big parts and deleting/moving them in big chunks)
- It uses quite a lot of CPU for denser (more rays) rooms
- It can sound very metallic in certain situations (small room, long decay, no high damping)
- It's not "the only reverb you'll ever need"
- When switching to the 'mono' source the volume goes drastically up (bug I think).
- Demo version still rather annoying with a loud beep much too often (why can't developers just trust the users a bit more!? Make the beep LOW in volume, very short in duration and a 60 second cycle, it'll still be effective copy protection and make the demo experience much better.
Some tips and tricks:
- Keep tweaking the 'ray' parameter, even small changes can dramatically change the stereofield of the early reflections and the feeling of the reverb
- Negative Pre-delay can be used to great advantage (to get rid of too long early reflections that sound like single delays)
- Use the high frequency damping of the walls and finetune them with the air damping
- Build unsymmetrical whacky rooms and randomly paint small bricks all over the place. Don't be afraid to knock holes in the walls of the room or simply don't build a room at all, just an open field with diffusors!
Cheers!
bManic
Last edited by bmanic on Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1144 posts since 26 Sep, 2005 from Germany
jeah bmanic you get what I meant to say !!
it is a good sounding ( maybe not the best for every field ) reverb tool that is quite cheap...
and it can do something that not many other reverbs can do.
You can reverb bass sounds....
While many musicians claim, you cannot reverbrate a bass sound because the sound gets too muddy, this is wrong ( from my point of view?)...
other reverbs sound like plates on bass sounds and do not get one and together.
but if I put a nice electronic bassline to the QuikQuak it gets a fat huge bassline... and it sounds like bass in huge hall...
with other reverbs the bass losses the power...
nice for 80s basslines.
Also snare sounds can profit from the little rubbish sound and you`ll get the big snare in the mix.
@friteuse : you`re right ; these claps have some change but I wonder if the claps are modulated or its the perfect er modelling of a reverb module.
But you cannot argue that its one of the finest reverbs in there....
it is a good sounding ( maybe not the best for every field ) reverb tool that is quite cheap...
and it can do something that not many other reverbs can do.
You can reverb bass sounds....
While many musicians claim, you cannot reverbrate a bass sound because the sound gets too muddy, this is wrong ( from my point of view?)...
other reverbs sound like plates on bass sounds and do not get one and together.
but if I put a nice electronic bassline to the QuikQuak it gets a fat huge bassline... and it sounds like bass in huge hall...
with other reverbs the bass losses the power...
nice for 80s basslines.
Also snare sounds can profit from the little rubbish sound and you`ll get the big snare in the mix.
@friteuse : you`re right ; these claps have some change but I wonder if the claps are modulated or its the perfect er modelling of a reverb module.
But you cannot argue that its one of the finest reverbs in there....
-
- KVRian
- 1442 posts since 30 May, 2005
Here we go again ...hifiboom wrote: But you cannot argue that its one of the finest reverbs in there....
In the end will be the word.
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
-
- KVRian
- 1202 posts since 8 May, 2003 from Munich
I think there might be a general misunderstanding going on in this discussion about what a smooth reverb tail means... seems it has different meanings to everyone.
Don't think there is a common terminology about that stuff. Some people call a transparent and hardly 'consciously' audible reverb vs a definitely noticable reverb which has a definitely noticable but well balanced (as opposed to harsh/shrill/boomy etc.) reverb tail.
You'd use them for different applications obviously. For example a natural piano line where the reverb isn't supposed to stick out or be noticable as an artifical reverb, you want the reverb to change the perception of the piano in a natural way.
On the other hand when you want a synth to sound like a bladerunner impression, where the reverb sounds unnatural but lets you achieve the desired atmosphere, you'll use a different reverb type/probably a different unit alltogether. They're like apples and oranges, two entirely different pairs of boots.
Markus
Don't think there is a common terminology about that stuff. Some people call a transparent and hardly 'consciously' audible reverb vs a definitely noticable reverb which has a definitely noticable but well balanced (as opposed to harsh/shrill/boomy etc.) reverb tail.
You'd use them for different applications obviously. For example a natural piano line where the reverb isn't supposed to stick out or be noticable as an artifical reverb, you want the reverb to change the perception of the piano in a natural way.
On the other hand when you want a synth to sound like a bladerunner impression, where the reverb sounds unnatural but lets you achieve the desired atmosphere, you'll use a different reverb type/probably a different unit alltogether. They're like apples and oranges, two entirely different pairs of boots.
Markus
-
- KVRist
- 172 posts since 6 Jul, 2005 from Roma (Italy)
Good point different verbs for different needs.
btw which reverbs have you used in the two different examples? they sounds good to me.
and the story goes on ... hopefully I'm still far from getting good verbs in the mix.
btw which reverbs have you used in the two different examples? they sounds good to me.
and the story goes on ... hopefully I'm still far from getting good verbs in the mix.
-
- KVRian
- 1202 posts since 8 May, 2003 from Munich
vss3 on the piano and r66 on the synth. Using these in general for 'transparent & realistic vs lyrical & dense' (yet another instance of weird terminology, sorry).
-
- Banned
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRist
- 172 posts since 6 Jul, 2005 from Roma (Italy)
in fact they 're really good sounding, once you have a good reverb like this on a piano on its own, how do you make it fitting in a mix with all the other instruments? cheers.
-
- KVRian
- 1202 posts since 8 May, 2003 from Munich
With realistic reverb the actual mixing should take place on the instrument, not the reverb.. the reverb isn't supposed to get in the way of anything (if it does, it's too much reverb, or the wrong reverb type).
That long dense reverb obviously is different.. just put an EQ on the reverb bus and attenuate frequencies that cause resonances in the mix. What you should do with such massive reverbs like on that synth, in general, is to sidechain-duck/compress the reverb bus with the original (dry) synth signal, so that the reverb automatically makes room for the synth, prevents the verb from muddying it all up.
That long dense reverb obviously is different.. just put an EQ on the reverb bus and attenuate frequencies that cause resonances in the mix. What you should do with such massive reverbs like on that synth, in general, is to sidechain-duck/compress the reverb bus with the original (dry) synth signal, so that the reverb automatically makes room for the synth, prevents the verb from muddying it all up.
-
- KVRian
- 1442 posts since 30 May, 2005
Tasty examples Markus!
The VSS3 sounds nice. Hm, PoCo ...
Best wishes, FRitz
The VSS3 sounds nice. Hm, PoCo ...
Best wishes, FRitz
In the end will be the word.
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1144 posts since 26 Sep, 2005 from Germany
@xRAVENx : good point.
Its hard to classify any VST or generell FX to be good or bad. Also destructive fx like distortion can be nice...
But there are some fx sequals out there that can do things other lower end gear cannot do...
and you`re right there are some reverbs that do not colour the sound to much... they just sit behind the dry signal and give you the feeling of a big room, a large hall, etc.
Other sound more like an FX and you can easily hear the reverb, like your bladrunner sample... it does some impression a large delay unit also can do to a sound.
I would classify the clap reverb that I like soo much as one of the first, its a more subtle effect... with a subtile tail....
but too many vst reverbs that sound smooth with high input signals ( hihats, claps) muddy the sound with many low end frequencies....
while the QuikQuak does not sound super smooth to my ears it just reverbs the frequencies that you give in as dry signal...
many other vsts sound with highs as if they were played between metal plates.... the high hat gets to much mid and bass frequencies, it sounds smooth because the high studdering frequencies are cut out very fast in the reverb tail....
while this sound better in a direct compare I don`t like it in mix....
Its hard to classify any VST or generell FX to be good or bad. Also destructive fx like distortion can be nice...
But there are some fx sequals out there that can do things other lower end gear cannot do...
and you`re right there are some reverbs that do not colour the sound to much... they just sit behind the dry signal and give you the feeling of a big room, a large hall, etc.
Other sound more like an FX and you can easily hear the reverb, like your bladrunner sample... it does some impression a large delay unit also can do to a sound.
I would classify the clap reverb that I like soo much as one of the first, its a more subtle effect... with a subtile tail....
but too many vst reverbs that sound smooth with high input signals ( hihats, claps) muddy the sound with many low end frequencies....
while the QuikQuak does not sound super smooth to my ears it just reverbs the frequencies that you give in as dry signal...
many other vsts sound with highs as if they were played between metal plates.... the high hat gets to much mid and bass frequencies, it sounds smooth because the high studdering frequencies are cut out very fast in the reverb tail....
while this sound better in a direct compare I don`t like it in mix....
-
- KVRian
- 1202 posts since 8 May, 2003 from Munich
Hifiboom,
maybe you are trying with a too high send level when you're trying to get that sound you're after. I only heard the dry/wet examples you put up, and you're using insane amounts of reverb on that.. with send levels so high, small room presets will sound weird. Maybe that's been a bit counterproductive in your tests?
Markus
maybe you are trying with a too high send level when you're trying to get that sound you're after. I only heard the dry/wet examples you put up, and you're using insane amounts of reverb on that.. with send levels so high, small room presets will sound weird. Maybe that's been a bit counterproductive in your tests?
Markus
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1144 posts since 26 Sep, 2005 from Germany
xRAVENx wrote:Hifiboom,
maybe you are trying with a too high send level when you're trying to get that sound you're after. I only heard the dry/wet examples you put up, and you're using insane amounts of reverb on that.. with send levels so high, small room presets will sound weird. Maybe that's been a bit counterproductive in your tests?
Markus
yeah true I did use much reverb on the test samples, but thats the way I test reverbs, as if I only would put about 5% on the dry signal it would have been even harder to distinguish the different reverb machines. In a mix I won`t use that much....
Like the Quantec Yardstick developer siad: a good reverb unit also has to sound clean at 90% wet and 10% dry signal....
and thats true.
How you use it in the mix is another story...